Share this story

Did you like the Star Trek episodes that focused on local problems, such as annoying space amoeba threatening Potemkin IV? Or those episodes featuring a broader "clash of civilizations" between the Federation, the Klingons, and/or the Romulans?

Star Trek: Ascendancy is the new $100 board game from Gale Force Nine, and it's all about Big Conflicts. In the game, you build an empire—then bump into others. Conflict will result. Planets will be conquered. Homeworlds will be threatened.

One of the hot titles at this year's huge Gen Con gaming convention in Indianapolis, Ascendancy has built buzz by producing a solid civ-building board game set in the Star Trek universe. And now that we've had a chance to put its starships through their paces, we agree. This is a terrific title—though it's not a "board game" at all. Ascendancy's unusual galaxy-building mechanism makes it one of the few games that offers players true control over the exploration and development of their empires, and that leads to a unique—and long—experience.

Enlarge/ The Romulan "command console" that shows shield and weapon bonuses, along with civ-specific abilities.

Gale Force Nine

Exploring the galaxy

A galactic civilization-building game should bake in some element of true exploration, the feeling that you're discovering "new worlds and new civilizations" and "boldly going," etc. But this can be difficult in board games. Pre-printed boards may allow for the randomization of planetary effects, but they generally provide fixed star maps (see the massive board in Star Wars: Rebellion for a good example).

Game details

Not Ascendancy. In their desire to provide supreme exploratory flexibility, the game's designers have produced a "board game" without a board. Instead, each player starts with a homeworld—Kronos, Earth, or Romulus—and builds out from there into the empty table. As ships explore, they travel along space lanes of varying lengths and discover new planets at the end of them (the planets are chosen randomly from a face-down stack).

Each planet is different; some house dangerous "hazards," while others are lush spots with plenty of room to build a civilization. Cards determine each system's level of existing civilization, which can vary from "none" to "pre-warp" to advanced "warp-capable," which are difficult to subdue.

In each game, then, your particular empire begins independently and grows organically. That growth is shaped by each player, since space lanes can extend out in any direction from existing planets, and they can eventually connect to the web of planets explored by one of your opponents.

Keeping your empire insular may feel wise, as contact with others opens the way to invasion and conquest. But empires that make contact also gain the huge advantage of trade with one another, providing more resources to both on every turn. This risk/reward dynamic shapes gameplay calculations throughout, offering rewards both for domination and for trade, but preventing them from being earned at the same time. (Aggressive action automatically breaks trade deals.)

The result feels truly exploratory, especially over the first 45 minutes to an hour, when empires may not yet be in contact. Not only do the planets change from game to game, but the very shape of the galaxy's layout and connections differs every time out.

In addition, while each civilization has identical actions (build ships, invade planets, etc.), each one also has bonuses that alter the strategic calculus. The Federation, for instance, is banned from invading planets or from colonizing primitive worlds; instead, it uses the "soft power" of its cultural hegemony to convince planets to join up willingly. The Klingons, by contrast, have attack bonuses and are forbidden from retreating in battle.

In a game about empires, individuals don't exist. Ascendancy's manual prominently displays Captains Janeway, Sisko, Kirk, and Picard on its cover, but they don't appear in the game. Starships aren't helmed by particular captains, and research advancements, fleets, and starbases aren't linked to people. That's a sharp contrast to games like Star Wars: Rebellion, which is full of plastic ships but makes specific heroes and villains into central game elements. This lack of human scale is not necessarily a problem, but just be aware that Ascendancy is about empire building at its highest, most institutional level.

Enlarge/ Some of the game's planets, with different numbers of places to build resource nodes.

34 Reader Comments

I wanted to comment on this, as well as other recent articles about tabletop games.

It's very interesting how many of these games are out there. I had no idea - perhaps I'm old school (even for being 32). When I think tabletop game (or "board games" as I always call them) I think of checkers, chess, Sorry! etc. Those games take me back to my youth.

The array of games (good or bad) that have been covered here is a mind opener. It's one of those "out of sight out of mind" situations. It's a whole segment that I literally didn't know existed.

That's why I keep lurking on this site - seems I am always finding something new.

I wanted to comment on this, as well as other recent articles about tabletop games.

It's very interesting how many of these games are out there. I had no idea - perhaps I'm old school (even for being 32). When I think tabletop game (or "board games" as I always call them) I think of checkers, chess, Sorry! etc. Those games take me back to my youth.

The array of games (good or bad) that have been covered here is a mind opener. It's one of those "out of sight out of mind" situations. It's a whole segment that I literally didn't know existed.

That's why I keep lurking on this site - seems I am always finding something new.

edit: spelling

Oh my, are you in for a treat. This is the golden age of board games.

I'm not sure where you're located, but you likely have a great local game store. In Portland, there is an amazing store: Guardian Games. When you step into this store, you'll at first stand speechless as you take in its scale.

I kinda want someone to turn this into a 4x computer game. Firaxis can have first jab at it.

I'd absolutely love it if someone were to make a modern version of the old game, Birth of the Federation. Cool 4X turn-based game in the vein of civilization with some interesting mechanics, but very very dated. Star Trek is a perfect atmosphere for games like that, in my opinion.

This looks fantastic! Too bad I'd never find two other people to play it with me

Yeah, sucks that it requires three players, which makes it even tougher than usual. There are some rumors of a Borg expansion next year (where the Borg would play as an AI/NPC), which would hopefully make it more playable solo.

It's a shame really because there is no way I could consistently find 3 people who know the rules or are patient enough to learn them, have 3 free hours all at the same time, and are Star Trek fans to make this worth buying. $50 maybe for the off chance I'll be able to play it 2-3 times ever, but not $100+ CDN.

I wanted to comment on this, as well as other recent articles about tabletop games.

It's very interesting how many of these games are out there. I had no idea - perhaps I'm old school (even for being 32). When I think tabletop game (or "board games" as I always call them) I think of checkers, chess, Sorry! etc. Those games take me back to my youth.

The array of games (good or bad) that have been covered here is a mind opener. It's one of those "out of sight out of mind" situations. It's a whole segment that I literally didn't know existed.

That's why I keep lurking on this site - seems I am always finding something new.

edit: spelling

These types of games are usually referred to as "tabletop games" to distinguish them from the more basic "board game." There's no clear line between the two; it's just more of a general description. Tabletop games are generally aimed towards older players and feature significantly more strategy. Most have multiple winning (or losing) conditions, significant resource management, player collusion, randomized gameplay, and so on that makes them a lot more engaging than the board games of your youth. There are even a whole group of co-op games where all the players play against the game and even some hybrids where you're playing against the game *and* the other players.

If you want to learn more about it, I reccomend Wil Wheaton's "Tabletop" series on YouTube. It's Wil getting together with groups of people and playing these kind of games.

If you want to get into playing some of them, I'd suggest one of the "big 4" to start out with: Settlers of Catan, Ticket to Ride, Alhambra, or Carcassone. If you want to learn more about those games, they've all been played on Tabletop.

This looks fantastic! Too bad I'd never find two other people to play it with me

This ^^

That also applies to many of the "regular board games" I have.... I have board gaming sessions about once a week to once a month. MY GAMES get played around once to 4 times a year. Between what I bring in, others bring in, and what others buy new... There's really no point in buying them unless they're at least 50% list price or more.

At the very least, my backlog of Wii, PC/Steam, and mobile games can be played at my leisure, without having to get people together.

Like some of the other posters here, I do like to see what's new in gaming news and "window shop", but honestly, were it not for such sites, I probably would've given up on board gaming years ago.

I wanted to comment on this, as well as other recent articles about tabletop games.

It's very interesting how many of these games are out there. I had no idea - perhaps I'm old school (even for being 32). When I think tabletop game (or "board games" as I always call them) I think of checkers, chess, Sorry! etc. Those games take me back to my youth.

The array of games (good or bad) that have been covered here is a mind opener. It's one of those "out of sight out of mind" situations. It's a whole segment that I literally didn't know existed.

That's why I keep lurking on this site - seems I am always finding something new.

edit: spelling

Yeah, this movement for some parts began back around the mid 90s, and we've been getting a steady stream of innovative content since then. Mind you, board games still pales in comparison to the video game and movie industry as a couple of examples, but it's been a thing.

Similar examples include how when people think beer, it's no longer just PBR, Budweiser, Miller Lite, and Coors... there's a whole selection of homebrews, microbreweries, and craft breweries making IPAs, stouts, lagers, pale ales, etc.

This looks fantastic! Too bad I'd never find two other people to play it with me

This ^^

That also applies to many of the "regular board games" I have.... I have board gaming sessions about once a week to once a month. MY GAMES get played around once to 4 times a year. Between what I bring in, others bring in, and what others buy new... There's really no point in buying them unless they're at least 50% list price or more.

At the very least, my backlog of Wii, PC/Steam, and mobile games can be played at my leisure, without having to get people together.

Like some of the other posters here, I do like to see what's new in gaming news and "window shop", but honestly, were it not for such sites, I probably would've given up on board gaming years ago.

I wanted to comment on this, as well as other recent articles about tabletop games.

It's very interesting how many of these games are out there. I had no idea - perhaps I'm old school (even for being 32). When I think tabletop game (or "board games" as I always call them) I think of checkers, chess, Sorry! etc. Those games take me back to my youth.

The array of games (good or bad) that have been covered here is a mind opener. It's one of those "out of sight out of mind" situations. It's a whole segment that I literally didn't know existed.

That's why I keep lurking on this site - seems I am always finding something new.

edit: spelling

Oh my, are you in for a treat. This is the golden age of board games.

I'm not sure where you're located, but you likely have a great local game store. In Portland, there is an amazing store: Guardian Games. When you step into this store, you'll at first stand speechless as you take in its scale.

Also check Goodwills and Salvation Army stores. One of the reasons I wish I lived in the NW is they get awesome games donated all the time.

It's very interesting how many of these games are out there. I had no idea - perhaps I'm old school (even for being 32). When I think tabletop game (or "board games" as I always call them) I think of checkers, chess, Sorry! etc.

I highly recommend you stay away from BoardGameGeek then - you might not be able to handle the sheer volume of games which exist. Particularly stay away from the hotness section! It's a certain way to drain the wallet/bank account.

Maybe it's the stage of life I'm in, but this game sounds awful. Exactly 3 players, and the game takes 3-5 hours to play? Even if I owned this game, I'd probably play it 0-1 times per year.

Yes, definitely the biggest drawbacks here. I think this is one of those games that, after it's described, will elicit different reactions from different people just based on their free time and what they want from a game. Nothing wrong with that, either!

What's the combat rules like? Is it dice rolling like Eclipse? Judging by hit rolls and shield modifiers it looks pretty similar.

Eclipse was a pretty long game for my group too and it sounds similar to this one.

Yes. You roll a die for every ship in combat. Add the other player's shield tech (0 at start) to your rolls and if it reaches your current to-hit or better (5+ at starting tech) you destroy one ship per successful roll. Each round of combat is executed and resolved simultaneously, so every ship gets their shot off before they get blown away. Simple, but effective.

You can play a two player game, and there are two expansions slated to be released later this month that add the Ferengi and Cardassians. There are cards in the box that go up to 10 players.

Is this correct? When I asked on boardgamegeek all I got was you couldn't play with just two. If it had a 2 player mode I think we would buy it. We can get a group together for larger games but would play it more often if it was 2

The game isn't a three hour plus slog - we stormed through 3 games in under four hours. And it's a lot of fun.

The first game was long - 2 hours. But that was to get a handle on all of the eccentricities of the game. The first draft rules book is poorly written and at times confusing.

Also - yes, it's possible to play 2 people or with the expansions up to five. While the official rules are balanced for 3, we've found that with small tweaks the game CAN be player for 2-5 players. I may publish the alternate rules on my blog before Christmas.

My only beef is that I paid Task Force Games for the expansions, and they have yet to ship with no answers yet as to why.

Obviously very different and not overtly Trek-based, but it was a lot of fun. Maybe a little outdated at this point, though. Though Star Trek does seem like a natural setting for a 4x game, particularly if you can find a creative way to get around the problem of every side devolving into a militaristic, expansionist empire that is the bread and butter of 4x games but doesn't seem to fit well with the Federation.

This is my new absolute favorite 'big game' - though it doesn't play like a 'big game.'

Your turn order is beautifully simple and far more streamlined than that of something like Eclipse. I believe this to be a superior game to Eclipse in almost every way.

4 to 5 hours is about what my experience has been as well - though I should mention that each time there were at least 2 new players. I expect this to get down to the '1 hour per player' eventually.

The base game is very tight, but...it becomes predictable barring exploratory effects like Lost Colony, Q, or the Traveler. Federation absolutely shines early-game and pretty much wins by default if left alone. Romulans have a respectably strong early game with their Mining Fleet and have the strongest mid-game in my opinion. The Klingons have the strongest late-game by far. They can easily rob you of victories, force the game to a stalemate, and gain the points they need for an Ascendancy victory just by bombarding your planets.

Nearly every single game I've played has followed this pattern by and large. The addition of a fourth player will be most welcome, especially if they are belligerents like Cardassians. Trade agreements and diplomacy will be vitally important. I think the fourth player adds true unpredictability and I cannot wait to pick up both the Ferengi and Cardassian expansions.

tl;dr - Buy it. Learn it. Love it. It's both the best Star Trek AND 4X game out right now.